Re: Doing a proper package split (cream)
Justin, thanks for your reply.
On Friday 10 March 2006 16:39, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> You probably want to make a new dummy package, one which I guess will
> have just copyright and changelog files, will be named "cream", and
> will have Depends: cream-doc, cream-program. This will cause existing
> cream installations to have the same things included in them, though
> by different packages.
Yes, that case looks simpler:
cream ----(split)---> cream-main + cream-doc
In this case 'cream' would just become a dummy package. To my eyes that's
still a bit ugly. If possible I'd wish for:
cream ----(split)---> cream + cream-doc
> Also, if cream had conffiles which changed across the upgrade, you
> would have to deal specially with them; "transferring ownership of
> conffiles", see my bugs #345112 and friends..
True. If the latter alternative would somehow work I wouldn't need to
transfer the conffiles to a new package because it would remain in
> In any case, you can and should always drop the upgrade foo after the
> next stable release.
Another issue I would like to avoid because I'll surely forget to remove
that cruft. :) A "good once and for all" solution would make me happier.
But it actually looks like the solution you proposed is more common.
I wonder if my proposal causes any bad things to happen. It would be very
unlikely that a user just installed the new 'cream-doc' package without
upgrading the 'cream' package. And since 'cream' and 'cream-doc' wouldn't
have any hard dependencies (like "Depends:" instead of "Suggests:") in the
future either there may well be situations where the documentation package
could have another version than the main package.
".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%-- 1,48 All